B
Broobarker
Guest
Anyone have any links or know any specifics offhand?
Can I have some examples of why the NAB's footnotes are so bad?
- Status
T
tobinatorstark
Guest
They are detrimental to Catholic Teaching, inclusive language in almost everyone of them and for the fact that not just Catholics, but Protestants translated it as well.
C
Cranch
Guest
A comparison of a NAB footnote with one from the Confraternity New Testament.
Why I think this is a bad note:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2159854&postcount=9
D
diggerdomer
Guest
They are not bad. They are very helpful. They are compatible with mainstream Catholic theology. If you don’t like them that is fine, but I don’t think it would be the best use of your time to pursue invalidating them.
T
Traditional_Ang
Guest
Diggerdommer:
I’ve just found the notes on my 40 year old Jerusalem Bible to be better and more helpful, and the commentary on the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible was really useful in a Bible Study course I took recently.
There’s now too much evidence for Early Dating for the Gospel to continue to support the Later Dates used in the Introductions in the NAB - See the following posts for links:
Re: Help! John 6 Post #81
Re: Help! John 6 Post #82****
Digger, I’m much more worried about what the The Teaching Authority of the Catholic Church has to say about something than I am about what “Mainstream Catholic Theology” thinks about something. I was at USF in the late 1970’s when the Theology Department and the Campus Ministry refused to join the SI Institute in sponsoring a Symposium celebrating the Ordinary Magisterium of the Catholic Church and when both Departments said they would BOYCOTT a Symposium celebrating Humanae Vitae before that.
Given that history and that Notre Dame sponsored the “V” Monologues, and has invited the most Pro-Abortion President in the history of our country, one who refuses to appoint someone the Vatican can accredit as Ambassador to the Vatican, to receive an honorary Doctorate while speaking at the Commencement address of the Law School, I have to assume that dissent from the Magisterium of the Church is still within the Mainstream of Catholic Theology.
I’d rather have a commentary that gives me what the Church Fathers and the Doctors of the Church had to say on the passages I was studying, along with notes about the Texts and Translation and some historical/archeological notes.
Here’s a passage from Psalm 22, often cited since the time of the Apostles as proof that Christ’s Death of the Cross was foretold in Scripture:
They open their mouths against me,
lions that rend and roar.
Like water my life drains away;
all my bones grow soft.
My heart has become like wax,
it melts away within me.
As dry as a potsherd is my throat;
my tongue sticks to my palate;
You lay me in the dust of death.
Many dogs surround me;
a pack of evildoers closes in on me.
So wasted are my hands and feet that
I can count all my bones.
They stare at me and gloat;
Psalm 22:14-18 NAB
Here it is in 2 other versions…
Roaring lions tearing their prey
open their mouths wide against me.
I am poured out like water,
and all my bones are out of joint.
My heart has turned to wax;
it has melted away within me.
My strength is dried up like a potsherd,
and my tongue sticks to the roof of my mouth;
you lay me in the dust of death.
Dogs have surrounded me;
a band of evil men has encircled me,
They have pierced my hands and my feet.
I can count all my bones;
people stare and gloat over me.
Psalm 22:13-17 NIV
Here it is in another:
They open wide their mouths at me,
like a ravening and roaring lion.
I am poured out like water,
and all my bones are out of joint;
My heart is like wax,
it is melted within my breast;
My strength is dried up like a potsherd,
and my tongue cleaves to my jaws;
Thou dost lay me in the dust of death.
Yea, dogs are round about me;
a company of evildoers encircle me;
They have pierced my hands and feet –
I can count all my bones –
they stare and gloat over me;
Psalm 22:13-17 RSV
Which one do you think sounds more like a Crucifixion? Which one do you think makes it more clear that Jesus is the “Lamb Slain from before the Foundation of the World”? Which do you think the Apostles and Early Church used? and, Which one do you think more accurately reflects the “Mind of the Church”?
This is just one example…
Your Brother and Servant, Michael
D
drforjc
Guest
T
tobinatorstark
Guest
I strongly disagree with you. If there is so much controversy regarding the NAB and its footnotes especially on the religious and apologist. Take the notes of the Haydock Bible Commentary the NAB and compare them.You can’t get anymore Catholic as far as notes goes than the Haydock Bible Commentary
D
diggerdomer
Guest
It doesn’t matter to me which you prefer, meaning, if you prefer it, great.
Are you referring to the Haydock from 1859? If so, I would disagree that a prior we can’t get any more Catholic than that. Lots has happened in the Church in the last 150 years, particularly regarding Scripture scholarship (also of course the Pontifical Biblical Commission, Pius XII’s landmark statements on Catholic Scripture scholarship, Vatican II’s Dei Verbum, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church, to name a few). I think it would be “more Catholic” to include all those references when comparing Bible commentaries.
D
diggerdomer
Guest
The Magisterium of the Church incorporates and listens to theologians (not to mention, of course, that there are quite a few theologians among the Magisterium). The Church Fathers and Doctors were, likewise, the “theologians” of their time. The Church doesn’t dismiss theologians, I don’t think we should either.
T
Traditional_Ang
Guest
Diggerdomer:
Actually, most of them weren’t. Most of them were the Bishops, the Successors of the Apostles who were responsible for faithfully transmitting the Deposit of Faith and interpreting that deposit under the Influence of the Holy Spirit. Many of the Rest (such as the Desert Fathers) were Monastics who lived as Cenobites or in the Desert. Very few, such as Origen, could rightfully be called pure theologians.
Instead of looking at Haydock, which is over 110 years old, perhaps we should look at the Navarre Bible, a complete Commentary along with dual column RSV-CE & New Vulgate recently published by the Faculty of the University of Navarre. Single Volume New Testament Here, Here and Here. 7-Volume Old Testament Here, Here and Here. Or, You could look at the Ignatius Study Bible, which is based on the Ignatius Bible, available in various volumes from Ignatius Press, Amazon and elsewhere. Both are actually NEWER than the NAB, and their Commentaries are NEWER then the notes in the NAB.
Digger, you asked for examples. I’ve provided a rather significant one and a translation which was published at the same time as the original Notes in the NAB, DRforJC has provided one, Tobinatorstark has provided the Haydock, and I’ve provided 2 MODERN Commentaries that both reflect the Magisterium.
As I’m sure you’re aware, opposition to teach Humanae Vitae is only one example of situations where the modern Catholic Theological Mainstream find itself at odds with the Teaching Authority of the Church. There are more, but I don’t want to spend Holy Week documenting rifts between the Church and those who are supposed to be her theologians.
Your Brother and Servant in Christ, Michael
B
bullfrog654
Guest
i believe their comes a time when the justice of the church isnt strong enough nor governments stance in findings on my computer while trying to gain faith one might have to reconsider why schooling and correctness is the only approach i suspect the pillar of faith of that being an athiest.
T
tobinatorstark
Guest
But neither of them you mentioned are Biblical Commentaries. Dei Verbum is a wonderful document, I feel that all strong minded Catholics read not only Dei Verbum or Lumen Gentium, but all Vatican II documents. I was ask to read them recently by Fr. Mitch Pacwa. The Catechism of the Catholic Church should be read by all Catholics period. The Bible is your owners manual and the Catechism is your repair manual. You need to read both before drivin’ to heaven. The Catechism is a great source and uses many church documents along with my scripture passages and I would recommend reading it along with your Bible. They Haydock Bible Commentary, yes of 1859, is quite detailed and quite more in depth than other biblical commentaries. The Navarre is great too. I know with the Haydock Bible Commentary that I am not going to run into any Protestant doctrine. One cannot be so sure with some of these other works out on the market. Doesn’t matter if one has a Nihil Obstat or imprimatur or not. The NAB’s footnotes were written not by just Catholics, but Protestants as well and do contain Protestantism in it. I would much rather know what I am reading and who composed it before I get it. I know 100% sure that the Haydock Bible Commentary contains no Protestant doctrine with the benefit of the scripture being translated from the only err free in moral and doctrinal matters, the Vulgate. Is the Vulgate perfect?? No, but it is err free and that is good enough for me.
P
Pinoy_Katoliko
Guest
Hello everyone!
I found this recent and revised article from Mr. Ben Douglass, former Vice-president of Catholic Apologetics International, about his thought on **The New American Bible **
pugiofidei.com/NAB.htm
God bless you all and have a blessed HOLY WEEK!
I found this recent and revised article from Mr. Ben Douglass, former Vice-president of Catholic Apologetics International, about his thought on **The New American Bible **
pugiofidei.com/NAB.htm
God bless you all and have a blessed HOLY WEEK!
D
diggerdomer
Guest
Of course not! Did you really think I was citing them as Biblical Commentaries? Sorry if I gave that false impression.
Duh!
My point is that Catholic Biblical Commentaries written after the Leo XIII, the PBC, Pius XII, and Vatican II will of course incorporate, benefit from, and be guided by such Magisterial teaching. Unlike anything from the 19th century (this was also when people rode horses, before the Industrial Revolution, remember)
Anyone reading/responding to this thread…have you referrred to the:
(New) Jerome Biblical Commentary?
Harper’s Biblical Commentary?
Collegeville Biblical Commentary?
Anchor Bible Commentary?
If you’ve never heard of or referred to any of these, I’d strongly encourage you to. They are just some examples of contemporary, mainstream, Catholic resources that the Magisterium relies on and refers to.
D
diggerdomer
Guest
Wonderful.Hello everyone!
I found this recent and revised article from Mr. Ben Douglass, former Vice-president of Catholic Apologetics International, about his thought on **The New American Bible **
pugiofidei.com/NAB.htm
God bless you all and have a blessed HOLY WEEK!
And how does this relate to any Church teaching, anything from the Magisterium? For example, the Catechism, Vatican II teaching, Pius XII, etc.?
If this is any more compelling or authoritative than the Magisterium, which of course has no problem with the NAB, please give us specifics.
And of course most importantly, blessed Triduum to all.,
T
tobinatorstark
Guest
I would stay far away from the New Jerome Biblical Commentary, but would read the original Jerome Biblical Commentary in a heartbeat. I never heard of Anchor Bible Commentary. The other 2 aren’t bad, but not as good as the Navarre or the Haydock.
U
una_ecclesia
Guest
Sometimes they are ok IMHO, but other times they can be annoying and not helpful at all When I was reading the book of hebrews, all I would see in the footnotes was how there were differences between the author’s description of Jewish sacrifice and the old testament description. It didnt mention any reason why that was so, just that it was there. This didnt clarify anything at all for me, and it happens in several other instances as well… If there is what seems like a contradiction in the bible (when there isnt of course), the footnotes in the NAB wont explain it but simply state it was there or reemphasize it even more…
F
Fidelis
Guest
I doubt very seriously that “the Maigisterium” “relies and refers” to the texts above --two of which are Protestant, one is popular level and the last (the New Jerome) is entirely reliant on the type of critical scholarship criticized by Pope Benedict XVI in “Jesus of Nazareth” and other of his writings – in promulgating Church doctrine. Are you sure you are clear on what the Magisterium of the Church actually is? Catholic Biblical commentaries (especially the NAB which has a captive American audience) should be taking their cues from the Magisterium, not the other way around. Many biblical “scholars” and theologians have instead set themselves up as an alternate magisterium, and then people mistakenly believe that. if it’s in a Catholic Bible or by a “Catholic” theologian, it MUST be true.
C
Cranch
Guest
On the contrary, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith rejected the NAB’s 1991 Revised Psalms for use in the English liturgy due to improper inclusive language and forced changes in the lectionary. Their rejection would seem to go beyond liturgical use as can be seen by the Vatican’s NAB web page where the Psalms cannot be found.
And yet, in the intervening years, the U.S. bishops have not seen fit to correct the NAB and provide a version to the faithful which would match what they hear at Mass.
- Status